When “Love” Is the Problem and Not the Answer
Article adapted from episode content.
The Troubling Misuse of Love
I find myself deeply troubled by a word many might assume should be universally embraced: “love”. This concern arises not from love in its biblical sense, but from a distortion of the concept that undermines clear moral thinking and biblical principles. What is becoming increasingly prevalent is the use of “love” as a convenient shield to avoid difficult discussions about moral truths, or, more insidiously, as an excuse to affirm behaviors that are undeniably wrong. This manipulation of “love” allows individuals to sidestep clear moral reasoning in order to advocate for desired behaviors, and tragically, many pastors and Christian leaders have succumbed to this deception.
My recent disquiet was sparked by an editorial in a local secular newspaper, penned by a Baptist pastor whose church is situated directly across from my own. This pastor’s piece aimed to refute a well-argued pro-life editorial recently published by my friend, Pastor John Kz, in the same paper. However, the refutation offered no substantive argument against John’s pro-life position. Instead, it pivoted, asserting that while advocating for one’s issue is acceptable, the Bible prescribes a “more excellent way”: love. This pastor’s approach exemplifies the troubling trend of using “love” to obfuscate moral clarity and disarm those who contend for truth.
The Fallacy of Moral Equivalency
This pastor’s editorial began by suggesting that if one claims to be pro-life and believes all humans possess intrinsic dignity as bearers of God’s image, then this belief must extend to all life issues. He stated, “If all human life does have dignity, then our votes must also take into consideration all human life in addition to the unborn as my friend John mentions”. The implication was that my friend John Kz was mistaken to focus solely on abortion while seemingly neglecting other “life issues” such as the treatment of immigrants, refugees, border policy, or equal pay for women. This creates a “stew of moral equivalency,” implying that focusing on abortion is too narrow.
However, this argument fundamentally misunderstands moral priorities. While acknowledging that abortion is not the only issue—just as slavery was not the only issue in 1860, or the killing of Jews the only issue in 1940—it is undeniably a “dominant moral evil” of our time. It was righteous for Christians to prioritize and work towards eradicating slavery and the systematic murder of Jews, and it is equally righteous to prioritize stopping the intentional killing of innocent human beings today.
I would challenge this pastor: what moral issue eclipses the intentional killing of one million innocent human beings annually within our own borders?. The common retort often heard is, “Why aren’t we devoting equal efforts to treating hunger in Bangladesh or starving children in India?”. This “stew of equivalence” suggests that if one truly cares about human life, all issues must receive equal attention. Yet, while global injustice exists, our capacity and responsibility differ. We cannot halt injustice in other countries by dictating their policies on hunger or infant mortality; those are the responsibilities of their respective governments. However, we can and ought to stop injustice within our own nation, within our own borders. The United States government possesses the power and authority to curtail the intentional killing of innocent human beings within its jurisdiction, and we are morally obligated to pursue that.
The pastor’s argument further distorted morality by suggesting that refusing entry to someone at a border is morally equivalent to intentionally killing them. This is simply “nonsense”. There is a profound moral distinction between denying someone entry—which leaves them in the same state they were in before reaching the border, a consequence of their own governments and cultures—and intentionally killing an unborn human being. Abortion does not leave the unborn safely ensconced in their mother’s wombs; it makes them “immeasurably worse off by intentionally slitting their throats”. Such a false equivalency is prevalent among some clergy and Christian leaders, and those committed to careful thought must actively push back against it.
Beyond Hearts: The Primacy of Deeds and Policy
Another dangerous distortion of “love” arises when the pastor cites 1 Samuel 16:7, stating, “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart”. While it is undeniably true that Scripture teaches God knows the human heart, it also explicitly states that the “human heart is desperately wicked, sick, and darkened, and in massive need of regeneration”. This is the essence of the “new birth”—God transforming a “heart of stone” into a “heart of flesh” that reflects His values.
The pastor, however, uses this truth to suggest we should disregard “external evil like abortion” and instead focus on the “heart of the person” or the “heart of the candidate”. The implication is that a candidate’s internal disposition might somehow outweigh their public promotion of evil. While it is conceivable for a pro-life candidate to have a “bad heart,” my primary interest in a candidate is not their individual heart but the policies they will promote from their political position.
Martin Luther King Jr. brilliantly articulated this distinction when a critic remarked, “Dr. King, the law can’t make the white man love you”. King’s profound response was, “You’re right. It can’t. The law can’t force the white man to love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and that matters”. The fundamental purpose of good civil law is not to induce love—whether for fetuses, immigrants, or anyone else—but to control the heartless. Most individuals will reject the gospel and God’s word, making civil law essential to prevent them from promoting evil on a grand scale.
Therefore, when evaluating a candidate, the focal point should not be the perceived “love” in their heart, but rather their proposed policies and the laws they intend to enact. Will these laws protect the innocent, especially the unborn, or will they intentionally cause harm?. Consider this: if you were a slave in Charleston Harbor in 1860, praying for deliverance, what would instill more courage? Hearing of a candidate with much “warmth for people” who nonetheless intended to keep you enslaved, or a “rough guy” who swore a lot and was poor in personal relationships, but was committed to outlawing slavery? The answer is clear: hope comes from the deeds and policies that promote justice, not from ambiguous sentiments of “love”.
Indeed, God judges the heart, and salvation is His work of regenerating the human heart. But in civic responsibility, we absolutely judge by deeds. Donald Trump, for instance, did not always speak a strong pro-life game in 2016 or 2024. Yet, it was his administration’s policies that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and cut federal funding for abortion promotion worldwide. These were monumental acts. We must judge by a person’s actions, behavior, and proposals, not merely what they might “feel in their heart”.
Distorting Scripture for Moral Compromise
The pastor’s distorted use of “love” continues with an appeal to 1 John 4:16: “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God and God in them”. This scriptural truth is then twisted into a “gobbledygook” argument that true godliness is evidenced by a refusal to judge people or their outward actions, instead simply “loving” them. The flawed reasoning suggests that such non-judgmental “love” will attract people to Christ.
This is “nonsense”. Imagine confronting Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller, Lutheran pastors who bravely resisted Hitler in 1940, and telling them that their outward opposition to Nazism was less important than discerning the “love” in their hearts for SS troops or concentration camp administrators. Such a notion is absurd. What was needed then, and what is needed now, is someone to stop the intentional slaughter of innocent human beings, not empty talk about “love”.
The pastor further misuses 1 Corinthians 13, the well-known “love chapter,” suggesting that patience, kindness, and avoidance of envy or pride should be the primary characteristics sought in leaders. While these are certainly desirable traits, he critically overlooks a crucial aspect: “Love also does not delight in evil”. Consider a political party in this country that not only tolerates but openly “rejoices in abortion, promotes it wholesale, and wants to destroy anything that would stand in the way of the destruction of children in the womb”. If this is not delighting in evil, what is?.
Furthermore, some states—often referred to as “blue states” like Illinois, California, Vermont, and Massachusetts—actively facilitate abortion by paying for women’s transportation, lodging, and the procedure itself, even for those coming from states where abortion is illegal. This is done to promote abortion wholesale. These actions are not merely tolerance; they are a clear demonstration of delighting in evil.
Love also “rejoices in the truth”. The truth of the pro-life position is grounded in a logical syllogism:
- Premise one: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Premise two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This argument is defended scientifically, affirming that a “distinct living whole human being” exists from the earliest stages of development, from the one-cell stage at fertilization. You did not come from an embryo; you once were an embryo. This is not blind faith; it is based on the undeniable facts of embryology. Philosophically, there is no essential difference—whether of size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency—between an embryo and an adult that justifies killing the former but not the latter.
The Unborn as Our Neighbor: A Call to Truth
To put this in terms the pastor might understand: just as it is wrong to discriminate against people based on skin color or gender, it is equally wrong to discriminate based on their size, level of development, location, or degree of dependency. These traits are morally irrelevant because none of them possess “moral value-giving properties”. We encounter small humans, large humans, intelligent humans, less intelligent humans, and humans with varying degrees of dependency or geographic locations. None of these differences provide a just reason for intentionally killing someone. The pastor’s editorial completely fails to refute the pro-life position; it simply tries to change the subject to “love”.
So, I pose this question to the pastor and to all who advocate for this distorted view of love: Is it loving to intentionally kill an innocent human being?. The pastor appeals to loving our neighbor, and I wholeheartedly agree with that principle. But then, is the unborn my neighbor?. The entire argument for silence or justification in the face of abortion relies on the unspoken, yet fundamental, assumption that the unborn is not a human being, not one of us. If the unborn is a human being, then how can it be “loving” to intentionally kill them, or to vote for candidates who actively promote their wholesale destruction?. It is only “loving” in this warped sense if the victim class in question is not considered a member of the human family. This critical assumption is never argued for by the pastor; it is simply presumed under a “wishy-washy gobbledygook concept of love”.
It is increasingly alarming to see evangelical and Catholic leaders promote tolerance, love, and care as a means to excuse the intentional killing of innocent human beings. This is “nonsense”. Christians must demand courage from their leaders and reject this morally compromised stance. Love does not mean we affirm what is evil. Scripture unequivocally states that God intensely “hates the shedding of innocent blood”. This is explicitly taught in passages like Exodus 23, Proverbs 6, Isaiah 1, and Matthew 5. If God abhors the intentional killing of innocent human beings, then the only question we need to answer is: Are the unborn human beings? If they are, then intentionally shedding their blood is “particularly egregious to God”.
Rejecting Compromise and False Marketing
Beware of “false appeals to moral equivalency” that distort words like “love” under the guise of compassion. Do not fall for the notion that voting for leaders who support “child sacrifice” is somehow “better for the kingdom” or “better for God” because they are perceived as “more loving in their hearts” than those who outwardly advocate for life but whose hearts may be “darkened”. This is “nonsense”.
There is a misguided belief that if Christians were simply “more loving” and avoided engagement with “external issues like abortion,” secular people would flock to churches. This, too, is “nonsense”. People reject the Christian gospel not because Christians are not “nice enough,” but because they “love darkness rather than the light”. The Bible is clear: people love evil and practicing evil; they do not wish to turn to Christ because they enjoy their current way of life. Without a work of regeneration by God in a person’s life, they will not repent and believe the gospel.
The gospel message—”Repent, reject yourself, pick up your cross, and follow Jesus”—is not a consumer-friendly “sales pitch”. The culture craves messages that promise comfort, personal benefit, and an improved life. Telling people that it is wrong to intentionally kill their own offspring to facilitate college, a better job, or save a relationship does not make their immediate life better; it makes it “immeasurably more challenging”. Yet, this is precisely what the Christian gospel demands.
Therefore, the idea that we can somehow appease the culture by adopting a distorted concept of “love,” avoiding “external issues,” and focusing solely on the “heart” is utterly false. We must stick to the principle that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Anyone who attempts to affirm the killing of the innocent, or to cover up the evil of abortion by appealing to other issues, is not worthy of being heeded. We must seek out better voices, read better books, and inform ourselves to bring truth to these critical issues.
Just as a lighthouse stands firm against the storm, unwavering in its beam to guide ships away from treacherous rocks, so too must our moral convictions stand against the swirling currents of distorted “love” that would lead us to shipwreck on the shoals of compromise and evil. The beacon of truth must shine clearly, not softly diffuse to accommodate every passing fog.